Razz Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Iranian men have been banned from wearing necklaces in the latest crackdown by the Islamic regime on "un-Islamic" clothing and haircuts. Thousands of special forces have been deployed in Tehran's streets, participating in the regime's "moral security plan" in which loose-fitting headscarves, tight overcoats and shortened trousers that expose skin will not be tolerated for women, while men are warned against glamorous hairstyles and wearing a necklace. The new plan comes shortly after the Iranian parliament proposed a bill to criminalise dog ownership, on the grounds that it "poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the west". From The Guardian Thoughts on this? I'm dumbfounded.
jayseven Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Lol. Iranians are so funny. They were a bit half-hearted with the recent revolution-madness that hit the middle east a few months ago. Totally deserve to be rid of their nonsensical, ridiculous 'governers'
Kurtle Squad Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Don't you mean Fashion Police? Anyway; the Tories are close to implimenting similar policies.
Razz Posted June 16, 2011 Author Posted June 16, 2011 Don't you mean Fashion Police? Anyway; the Tories are close to implimenting similar policies. Really, and what would they be?
Kav Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Being half Iranian I can only facepalm myself over the way Iran is!
Kurtle Squad Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Really, and what would they be? Well it only covers childeren; so it's not quite the same.
Razz Posted June 16, 2011 Author Posted June 16, 2011 Well it only covers childeren; so it's not quite the same. No it's not the same at all, and if you think that children should be parading around disgustingly overly-sexualised clothing that clearly is inappropriate then, well, it says it all really.
Kurtle Squad Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 No it's not the same at all, and if you think that children should be parading around disgustingly overly-sexualised clothing that clearly is inappropriate then, well, it says it all really. That's not what I said, nor suggested: Do not accuse me of Thought-Crime. That says it all really.
Razz Posted June 16, 2011 Author Posted June 16, 2011 That's not what I said, nor suggested: Do not accuse me of Thought-Crime. That says it all really. I apologise, that was jumping the gun a bit. But I don't think it's fair to suggest they're doing the same when actually the desexualisation of children policy is actually a welcome one in my eyes.
Kurtle Squad Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 I apologise, that was jumping the gun a bit. But I don't think it's fair to suggest they're doing the same when actually the desexualisation of children policy is actually a welcome one in my eyes. As do I. I do however believe that the Government's role in such matters should be to nudge, not coerce. I appologise if my original post was misleading; but the UK is a stepping stone or two away from similar policies.
chairdriver Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 On the topic of sexualisation of child (given there's not really much you can say re: Iran apart from Fascism and oppressive religion are awfowl, but we all know that anyway [i'd go further to say Police in general are dredfowl, but that's a different matter]), it reminds me of the phrase "Fascism often wears a baby's face", where fascism is implemented via the sentiment that anything impure will corrupt youth. [Obviously, that's an extreme casepoint though -- not really suggesting the toning-down of tween magazines etc is fascism.] Point is, realistically, the best way to tackle this is to educate people. To prevent teen pregnancies. It seems to me that this whole thing is aimed at "chav" kids (not a term I'd use, but what someone else might say -- I think the word is a form of class hatred), and the problem would be much better solved through social equalisation. [i progressively think more and more that a few of this country's problems would be solved if Oxbridge made an announcement that in 7 years time they were only going to take in state school pupils. [i]THAT[/i] would really do *a lot* of good for social mobility.]
Kurtle Squad Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Point is, realistically, the best way to tackle this is to educate people. To prevent teen pregnancies. It seems to me that this whole thing is aimed at "chav" kids (not a term I'd use, but what someone else might say -- I think the word is a form of class hatred), and the problem would be much better solved through social equalisation. It's not. Working Class =/= Chav Chav = Chav The fact there's a correlation is irrelevent. A culture or way of life is up to anyone to label (especially ones without boundaries such as subcultures) and make up their own minds about; in the same way one can label Naziism as bad, one should be able to label any other way or life, or belief as negative/bad; such as Iran's totaliatarian tendancies. [] Actually, I reckon all this dissing of Iran is just a form of nation hatred! Disgusting!!! [/sarcasm] The Chav/"working class" thing is the next step in victim culture (that the media seem to love to push - They seem to be unhealthily happy to jump at the opportunity to be the voice of a "victim"). *Sorry for hijack* Edited June 16, 2011 by Kurtle Squad
chairdriver Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 It's not. Working Class =/= Chav Chav = Chav The fact there's a correlation is irrelevent. A culture or way of life is up to anyone to label (especially ones without boundaries such as subcultures) and make up their own minds about; in the same way one can label Naziism as bad, one should be able to label any other way or life, or belief as negative/bad. The Chav/"working class" thing is the next step in victim culture (that the media seem to love to push - They seem to be unhealthily happy to jump at the opportunity to be the voice of a "victim"). Read this: I've read a wee bit, and fair points are raised. Enough such that I'm not going to use the word again.
Kurtle Squad Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Read this: I'd rather not waste my money or time reading anything a Guardian writer has to say (with few exceptions). Especially certain social commentary. That may sound arrogant, but I'm 99% sure of the kind of bullshit which will be spouted, I've read such articles before. Same arguments, different word, different "victim", long book. Though I'm sure a few decent minor points will be raised. I don't tend to use the word chav anyway; just chavy. I'm ready and waiting for a Guardian writer's book about the undermining and misuse of negative "-ist" words. Be sure to contact me if one surfaces. I've read a wee bit, and fair points are raised. Enough such that I'm not going to use the word again. Edited June 16, 2011 by Kurtle Squad
The fish Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) [i progressively think more and more that a few of this country's problems would be solved if Oxbridge made an announcement that in 7 years time they were only going to take in state school pupils. [i]THAT[/i] would really do *a lot* of good for social mobility.] First and foremost, it's not "cool" to not be able to spell awful (or, indeed, is using the correct spelling "too mainstream"). Deliberately being a dick doesn't make you special, it does what it say on the tin. And if you say I'm being sexist/genderist for using "dick" as a derogatory term, I will literally kill you. Secondly, the issue with Oxbridge isn't intake from public or state schools, or the ratio per se - one person from my year at (state) school went to Oxford and seventeen went to Cambridge - it's an issue of state schools not being allocated enough money, and not spending what they've got wisely. As much as I hate to say it, I'll admit that the good quality teachers generally go to the schools that pay more/spend it better, and as such the quality goes up both in teaching itself and resources/equipment. State education, whilst undeniably essential, is fucking difficult to get right. Oh, and my school, whilst state funded, was stupidly posh (boys had to wear Harris tweed jackets, for example), and is proof in itself that the "upper classes" don't necessarily send their kids to private school. Hell, if you exclude the dozen students from Luton or Batford, I was the "lowest class" person in my year, and as anyone on here who's met we will tell you, I'm a bit of a posh boy. Oh, and to me at least, "chav" isn't just someone who wears designer sportswear, it's specifically the kind of people who try and knick your phone, or who hang around outside my local supermarket and call everyone who walks past a "cunt" in an attempt to get a reaction, and if they do they give it the whole "what the fuck are you looking at and what are you fucking going to do about it, cunt" act. Someone who doesn't think such activities are a good way to spend a few hours isn't a chav in my mind. The anti-social behaviour is an essential component. Edited June 17, 2011 by The fish
Kurtle Squad Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) We've been censored!!! CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP!!! (Everything's in my penultimate post though). (Leaving this post incase someone gets confused) Edited June 17, 2011 by Kurtle Squad
weeyellowbloke Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 To the OP: Yep, it's stupid to police fashion in an effort to curb a culture you dislike. For another side of the same coin look at European countries banning the burka. It'll just lead to needless animosity and persecution. To the class warfare: Some people do wrongly use the word chav to refer to what they view as the smelly underclass in general. Maybe to make themselves feel superior, maybe because it's more with the zeitgeist than plebs. In my book some chavs are 'working class', but not all 'working class' are chavs. Chav is just another way to say "unpleasant little shit".
chairdriver Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) We've been censored!!! CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP!!! (Everything's in my penultimate post though). No, I deleted my post, because I couldn't be bothered arguing, and hated what I said like a second after I posted it. First and foremost, it's not "cool" to not be able to spell awful (or, indeed, is using the correct spelling "too mainstream"). Deliberately being a dick doesn't make you special, it does what it say on the tin. [Reference to my dark/fighting Chicken Pokemon, tbf.] Edited June 17, 2011 by chairdriver Automerged Doublepost
Kurtle Squad Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 No, I deleted my post, because I couldn't be bothered arguing, and hated what I said like a second after I posted it. Okay; I've Deleted my post too. Though I wouldn't usually; I know how it feels to be misrepresented by ones own words. Just to wrap up: I would gladly read the book if I felt it would have something to offer me other than frustration with the writer.
MoogleViper Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Oh, and my school, whilst state funded, was stupidly posh (boys had to wear Harris tweed jackets, for example), and is proof in itself that the "upper classes" don't necessarily send their kids to private school. Hell, if you exclude the dozen students from Luton or Batford, I was the "lowest class" person in my year, and as anyone on here who's met we will tell you, I'm a bit of a posh boy. No they don't all send their kids to private. but I'm guessing that your area (like many others with a good state/grammar school) will have higher house prices, partly due to people moving there to get the better schooling. So whilst they haven't dirrectly paid for their education, they have done indirectly, and have still priced the working class out.
Grazza Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 We've got to be very careful this doesn't happen here. Don't let anyone tell you it's racist - these zealots will try to control all of us, whatever our race. Censored! Bikini advert blacked out with spray paint by 'Muslim extremists who object to women in swimsuits'By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 1:28 AM on 13th May 2011 Comments (211) Add to My Stories Share She is supposed to be advertising a sexy bikini. But instead the model on this poster, in Birmingham, has been defaced in an act of vandalism blamed on militant Muslims who were offended by her flesh. Similar acts of vandalism have been carried out in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Police there also believe extremists are responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386364/Censored-Bikini-advert-blacked-spray-paint-Muslim-extremists-object-women-swimsuits.html#ixzz1PXFgF3ui Tower Hamlets Taliban: Death threats to women who don't wear veils. Gays attacked in the streets. And all in a borough at the heart of Britain's capital...By Tom Rawstorne Last updated at 4:40 PM on 13th May 2011 Comments (331) Add to My Stories Share His promise to turn last month’s Royal Wedding into a ‘nightmare’ may not have materialised — but that won’t stop Richard Dart from peddling his views about Britain’s monarchy online. ‘Prince William, Prince Harry and the Queen of England are guilty of funding and supporting the terrorist attacks that take place in Muslim lands,’ he says adamantly in an internet video broadcast. A Briton from Dorset who converted to Islam in 2009 and renamed himself Salahuddin (the son of teachers), Dart is one of several extremist Muslim preachers operating in the Tower Hamlets area of East London. This vocal minority, who are causing increasing concern in the area, have lent this corner of the capital a new nickname — the Islamic republic of Tower Hamlets. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html#ixzz1PXGRW77i Be warned.
weeyellowbloke Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 The incredible double standards of the Daily Mail always amazes me. A paper that decries the failing moral standards of this country at every opportunity finds themselves disgusted by censorship by 'extremist muslims' (without any evidence what-so-ever). Also from the article: 'I don't think it's just kids messing around - they've spray-painted specific areas and covered up anything that might be offensive to very religious people. 'It's a bit worrying, I don't think it's up to other people to decide what can and can't be displayed on our streets, especially because we're a Christian country.' Ummmm, how about no.
Recommended Posts